Emotions inside Watford Town Hall reached boiling point when controversial plans for a back garden development resurfaced last night (Thursday).

Visao Ltd had applied to build six homes and three flats on land at 154 Ridge Lane and at the rear of 271, 273 and 275 Gammons Lane.

This was the developer's second proposal for this piece of land, after a planning inspector overturned the rejection of a previous scheme for 11 dwellings in February 2008.

And it had been put on hold while residents unsuccessfully fought to overturn the inspector's decision in the High Court, in April this year, and were then refused the chance to take their case to the Court of Appeal in June.

Watford Borough Council's planning officers felt this second proposal, which reduced the overall number of units, was “more in keeping with the character and appearance of the area” and recommended it for approval.

Margaret Forrester, speaking against the development, said: “This is still an overdeveloped site which now wants to introduce blocks of flats which would be totally out of character with the surrounding area.”

Five ward councillors – Amanda Grimston, Andrew Mortimer, Steve Johnson, Mark Watkin and Andrew Forrest – also spoke against it.

Councillor Forrest said: “It remains an obtrusive and overly dominant development.

“There's the danger of a piecemeal development here which will allow a significant quarter of this site to be developed. It seems to me to be unreasonable, unnecessary and unwarranted.”

Councillor Grimston said: “Residents are concerned about the changing face of Watford, particularly the destruction of the character in their area. They tell me their community is being destroyed with poorly constructed housing.”

Stan Mills, for Consensus Planning on behalf of the applicant Visao Ltd, spoke against a backdrop of heckling from local residents, who all turned out in green t-shirts bearing the message “Save Our Gardens”.

He said: “It should be remembered the primary reason for the residents' challenge was that of badgers. There are no badgers now on the site. Despite all the supporting history, this is a separate application and should be determined on its own rights.”

Amid the emotion of the supporters in the chamber, development control committee member councillor Ian Sharpe “injected a note of reality” into the proceedings.

He said: “For anybody to justify refusal they would have to show why this is much worse than the last one.

“However much it maybe disliked, I don't think we have any choice but to pass it.”

Councillor George Derbyshire added: “It would be perverse in the extreme not to approve this less harmful application.”

Councillor Zoe McQuire lamented the loss of more back gardens to development.

She added: “I'm saddened this mass of green is going to disappear. I still don't like this application. It's in the wrong area and I'm saddened to see it.”

Meanwhile, Councillor Fawziyyah Qureshi said she shared the concerns of residents and would vote against the plan.

She said: “It seems to me planning inspectors can override the views of local residents and planning officers. It should be refused.”

The committee voted four to three in favour of the application.

Leaving little time for the chamber to digest the decision, committee members were immediately asked to judge a subsequent application for a plot of back garden land immediately next to the site they had debated moments earlier.

The same developer, Visao Ltd, applied to build two two-storey buildings for nine flats in the gardens of 263-267 Gammons Lane, which would use the new access road from Ridge Lane provided by the previous application.

However, the plan also amended the application approved by the planning inspector, which meant this new application was an “extension of the existing approved scheme”, according to the council's report.

Ridge Association member Jane Johnson said: “This application is clearly creeping development at its worst.

“We ask the committee to send a message to this developer that this creeping development is unacceptable.”

Councillor Grimston told the committee: “I cannot believe these developers keep coming back, keep pushing the limits. We need to turn around and say no.”

It was Councillor Mortimer, however, who caused outrage in the chamber, using the word "rape", and was warned of his conduct by committee chairman Alan Burtenshaw.

Councillor Mortimer said: “It has to be time this development control committee stood up to be counted publicly and nationally. If they don't, we're going to be sitting here in six months time listening to the next rape and that's what's happening to the very small amount of greenery in Nascot and Watford.”

The chairman was also confronted by Councillor Johnson, who accused him of failing to remain neutral in a heated exchange that reflected the high emotion of the evening.

Mr Mills again spoke for Visao Ltd. He said: “This application completes the development of the site. The development sits comfortably in its surroundings. The buildings will barely be visible behind the trees.”

During the committee's debate, Councillor George Derbyshire maintained this latest application affected both the new land and the previously approved site.

He said: “It's absolutely clear this is an unacceptable intensification of the use of the site.”

Councillor Steve Rackett added: “There are appropriate places for blocks of flats in Watford but I don't think intensification in this part of town is correct.”

Councillor Derbyshire recommended the application be refused due to “mass and scale of the combined development which is considered to be an excessive intensification of use of the combine site”.

However, planning manager David Noble said: “You are appearing to make this decision not only on the application in front of you but as though it's development on the whole site. You must make the decision only on the application in front of you.”

He added: “I'm far from clear what is meant by excessive intensification.”

However, Councillor Derbyshire's motion was put to the committee and the application was rejected by four votes to three, which was met by a round of applause from the residents in the room.